While she was en route from London to Cape Town South Africa, her plane tracked by thousands on Twitter, who created the hashtag #HasJustineLandedYet and tweeted updates on which airline, what flight and when she would arrive in Cape Town. She was an easy target for ridicule, given that she was the director of corporate communication for IAC, a large firm with many well-known public brands. She was an expert on public relations. She ought to have known better. And yet, apparently didn’t.

So Justine Sacco should have known better. And quite frankly, she deserved that ridicule. She effectively stood in the center of town and shouted at the top of her lungs something disgusting and inexcusable, as her employer quickly noted:

This is an outrageous, offensive comment that does not reflect the views and values of IAC. Unfortunately, the employee in question is unreachable on an international flight, but this is a very serious matter and we are taking appropriate action.

And the Internet, as a microcosm of human culture and society reflects that behavior. Indeed, because the Internet largely only has one mechanism for controlling bad behavior – how else do you reach someone sitting at a computer half way around the world? – ridicule was the only means by which bad behavior could be controlled.

I understand this, and in my own way I shared in this communal response, following tweets, retweeting, and giving blow-by-blows to people who weren’t online but, I felt, should be aware of what was happening. I was part of the massive response to her tweet. And I relished it.

Ashamed of shaming?

Looking back, ironically, I found myself feeling ashamed, because I could see in my mind her arrival in Cape Town, and the absolutely humiliating way she was received by the world. I could see where her job was in jeopardy and could easily predict that she was either already unemployed, or shortly would be. I felt pity for her. The conflicted emotions caused me to think about what happened, and to ask myself if the public response was too extreme.

Justine Sacco is a public figure, but not in the way that Sarah Palin, Martin Bashir, or Phil Robertson are. She was largely anonymous until her infamous tweet. Somehow an internet flaming of a seriously misguided statement had become front page news across the globe. What should have been a limited Internet flaming, perhaps mostly contained to Twitter, and a few other venues became the topic du jour for major media. Yes what she said was incredibly crass. But any one of us could make that mistake. I felt the intense response was, in one aspect, over the top. Yes she deserved ridicule, but did she deserve being on the websites of so many major media outlets? Did her flaming need to expand beyond the bower of Twitter to include the larger world?

My first reaction when considering this is that no, it did not. Shaming should be a just response. And part of the justness of the response should include it being limited in scope to just the community in which the bad behavior was originally displayed. I.e., if you act out on one IRC channel, you should not be pursued from there to other channels, and then to ListServs, your email accounts and so on. That would be cyber-bullying.

But when we consider that the full effect of shaming is not only to have an individual internalize that they have misbehaved, and cause them to alter their own behavior , but also, to make an example as a deterrence to others, then the scale of the response can be seen in a different light.

If the response had been limited to Twitter, as I thought was proportional, then the value of her shaming would be limited to only those people who were privy to the event on Twitter. An important lesson to for the rest of us would be lost.

If the behavior were truly as egregious as it seemed, then it needed a public airing that exceeded its original sphere. The larger community needs to know of such things, not only as part of a public shaming of a bad actor, but also to deter similar behavior by others. That deterrence only works if others hear about it.

Moreover, a bad actor on Twitter will almost always find a chorus of support from like-minded people, and that blunts the disciplinary effect of shaming. But when the shaming is reported outside Twitter, in forums like the New York Times, a comparative handful of like-minded bad actors is less of a buffer. The wider exposure of her bad act and its response made her wrongdoing and the consequences clear. She hadn’t merely offended a few ‘hypersensitive’ people on Twitter. She had violated the norms of the wider human community.

Shaming is effective

The proof of this can be seen in her immediate withdrawal from Twitter, and her deletion of her account which, as described in Daniel M.T. Fessler’s paper, is a behavior consistent with someone having been properly shamed. It is an acknowledgement the social justice of that shaming.

Words cannot express how sorry I am, and how necessary it is for me to apologize to the people of South Africa, who I have offended due to a needless and careless tweet. There is an AIDS crisis taking place in this country that we read about in America but do not live with or face on a continuous basis. Unfortunately, it is terribly easy to be cavalier about an epidemic that one has never witnessed firsthand.

For being insensitive to this crisis – which does not discriminate by race, gender or sexual orientation, but which terrifies us all uniformly – and to the millions of people living with the virus, I am ashamed.

This is my father’s country, and I was born here. I cherish my ties to South Africa and my frequent visits, but I am in anguish knowing that my remarks have caused pain to so many people here; my family, friends and fellow South Africans. I am very sorry for the pain I caused.

By offering her apology, she makes clear to anyone who might dare to act as she had, that she herself agrees with the condemnation she received. No one who comes after her will be able to use her as an example of why they might be right in their bad behavior.

The few tweets that called for violent reprisals or exposed personal information about Sacco were quickly condemned by the same voices who condemned her tweet. She was not beaten or arrested. As Dr. Fessler found, public shaming is among the least harmful forms of social discipline. This was no “mob.”

The Justine Sacco saga offers lessons for all of us. We should all think before we ‘joke’ about race, sex, or other privilege-laden topics, even if you’re a professional comedian like Steve Martin. We should not tolerate offensive ‘jokes,’ nor should we tolerate doxing or calls for violence in response to such comments. If we’ve given offense, we should offer a sincere apology, as Sacco and Martin did. We should find ways to turn such mistakes into public benefits, as the Aids for Africa site link did. And when someone offers a sincere apology and follows through with appropriate behavior, we should forgive them and welcome them back into society.

I’m no longer ashamed of my small role in shaming Justine Sacco. It was a measured and appropriate response to outrageous public behavior. The alternative is for the rest of us to sit quietly and let ugly, hateful, public insults go unpunished. That is not acceptable.

11 Comments

While I was not part of the Sacco “event” online, I had misgivings as well. Part of me was horrified by her cavalier joke, finding it utterly unacceptable, yet part of me felt pity for her.

Yet I understand the value of shaming. Some cultures use it as the only form of social control, and it’s quite effective. Children are never “punished” in the sense we think of punishment, but shamed for acting inappropriately.

I worry about people who can never be shamed. But at the same time, shaming can be misused in a very abusive way. It’s a fine line to be walked carefully.

I’m not sure that line was walked with much care in the Socco incident. I wonder what makes her different from Phil Robertson. Perhaps because he has so many vocal supporters, he gets away with far worse. He clearly doesn’t feel shamed.

I have still not settled on a response to this particular case, but I do know your conclusion is correct: we cannot stand by and remain silent in the face of such ugliness.

Lake Toba
on December 24, 2013 at 9:23 am

Thank you WB. Part of what troubles me about this whole unfortunate event is exactly that: Phil Robertson is, as of this moment, getting away with some seriously unpleasant behavior.

I don’t have any answers yet. Perhaps if A&E do fire him, and cancel the show, then we’ll know his shaming was at least effective in undercutting support for him on his channel. But even though A&E might be financially ruined by all of this, that won’t be enough of a deterrent.

I think that like a vampire, he’ll just rise again. He’ll get picked up by another broadcast venue (after the furor has died down) and the show will go on.

Jim W
on December 24, 2013 at 9:51 am

Excellent analysis Lake Toba. A show with a following will show up somewhere. Shame doesn’t work for Corporations, although sponsors loyal customers do. A few words on A&e.

“A&E stands for Arts & Entertainment.[3] The company is a joint venture between Hearst Corporation and Disney-ABC Television Group, a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%2BE_Networks

It would be hard to imagine how the Walt Disney Company could be any more insulated than IAC to having a bad actor in its sphere. Although IAC was more directly exposed because Justine Sacco was a direct employee of IAC, The Walt Disney Company is more vulnerable to collective consumer action (boycott, and public ridicule). Perhaps if more people were aware of Disney’s involvement, and directed their ire in that direction, Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty would be effectively shamed.

Apparently the “mob” descriptor is reserved for shaming by groups that some people think should just sit quietly and “lighten up” when someone says or does something outrageous.

Good morning! ::hugggggs::

addisnana
on December 24, 2013 at 7:41 am

This is a thoughtful analysis of the role of shaming and how the internet in this case policed itself.

The alternative is for the rest of us to sit quietly and let ugly, hateful, public insults go unpunished. That is not acceptable.

What leaves me scratching my head is why Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame cannot be shamed. The bigotry, racism and homophobia on the religious right thus far seems immune. They wave a selectively or wrongly quoted Bible verse or two and yell about their first amendment rights and shamers back off. The right wing does not apologize but goes further and gets more press for doing so.

Robertson’s comments in my opinion are just as shame worthy as Ms. Sacco’s comments. Yes he has the right to his opinions and the right to express them. He has the right to his religious beliefs. I don’t think any of those rights ought to include the right to trample on African Americans or the LGBT community. Is the Bible really a defense here? I hope that our society will learn how to shame the Phil Robertsons as well as twitter handled Justine Sacco.

Lake Toba
on December 24, 2013 at 10:09 am

It is often easy for people to excuse their behavior on religious grounds. It is interesting that this is often the fall back position for people who act in shameful ways, or who want to justify other people’s shameful actions. Dr. Fessler did not discuss how religion, or religious ideation could impact shaming, or feelings of shame. It would be worth investigating further whether there is a cross cultural tendency for this, or if it is endemic only to some cultures, like the United States.

Gardener
on December 24, 2013 at 7:41 am

Now we need to go to work on Issa, Limbo, Ryan, et al…..

addisnana
on December 24, 2013 at 8:06 am

“Flush Rush” doesn’t really shame him but it does seem to be working on his advertisers.

glendaw271
on December 24, 2013 at 8:09 am

Unfortunately, Gardener, I don’t think that they can feel shame.

glendaw271
on December 24, 2013 at 8:11 am

Thank you for this informative and thoughtful piece on what this incident shows.

I’m also impressed that the apology was a real apology that showed that the shaming worked.